ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00518
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that his
dishonorable discharge be upgraded based on clemency.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8 Oct
53 for a period of four years.
On 13 Sep 55, applicant was tried before a general court-martial convened
at Itami Air Base (AB), Japan for violation of Article 121, UCMJ (Theft).
He pled not guilty to the specification and charge; however, he was found
guilty and sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge,
forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 12 months and confinement at hard labor
for 12 months. The sentence was adjudged on 18 Oct 55. A previous
conviction of wrongful appropriation, by special court-martial on 14 Apr
54, was considered by the general court-martial in sentencing the
applicant. During confinement pursuant to the general court-martial
sentence, the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy,
sodomy and assault. He was tried jointly with three co-defendants by a
general court-martial convened at Itami AB, Japan; after pleading not
guilty, he was adjudged guilty of all three specifications and charges on
20 Jan 56. The sentence of dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture and
confinement at hard labor for seven years was approved by the convening
authority on 9 May 56. The Air Force Board of Review affirmed the findings
and sentence on 28 Jul 56 and the applicant’s petition to the US Court of
Military Appeals for a grant of review was denied on 18 Dec 56. On 15 Jan
57, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic (E-1) with a
dishonorable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-18 (Sentence of Court-
Martial). At the time of his separation, he was credited with 1 year, 10
months and 11 days of active duty service and 517 days of lost time.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 8 Jul 76 (refer
to Exhibit A for the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board).
The applicant’s subsequent requests for reconsideration of his application
were denied by the Board on 10 Apr 02 and 13 Jun 02 respectively (Exhibit
C).
In the applicant’s most recent request for reconsideration, post-marked 22
Jul 02, he submits post-service information. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments is at Exhibit D.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF FBI INVESTIGATIVE REPORT:
A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to applicant on 31 Jul 02 for
review. As of this date, no response has been received by this office
Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
We have considered the additional evidence provided relating to applicant’s
post-service activities and accomplishments. While these documents are
laudable, they do not alleviate the seriousness of his misconduct during
the time he was in the military service. Notwithstanding the applicant’s
improved behavior since leaving the military service, the characterization
of his service was based on the circumstances which existed at the time and
resulted from his own extensive misconduct. We do not find the
characterization of his discharge unduly harsh for the numerous offenses
committed. In view of the above and the seriousness of the misconduct
which led to his trial and conviction by the military court, we are not
inclined to exercise clemency in the form of an upgrade to the applicant’s
discharge at this time.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application
was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will
only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 12 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-00518.
Exhibit A. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jul 76, with DD Form 149,
dated 5 May 76, and HQ USAF/JAJM’s letter, dated
18 Jun 76.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 10 Apr 02 and 13 Jun 02,
with Applicant’s reconsideration requests of
18 Dec 01 and 17 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s reconsideration request, post-marked
22 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. FBI Identification Record.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jul 02.
JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
Panel Chair
The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand. The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand. Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which...
He recommended that applicant be discharged from the service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is now retired and a member of the American Legion. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03514
He accepted responsibility for his mistakes by pleading guilty to the other charges. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01750
He has provided no evidence that such an upgrade was granted since it is a copy of this proof that he is requesting. As the applicant appears unable to establish to our satisfaction that his dishonorable was upgraded and a general discharge certificate was issued as he claims, we suggest he may wish to amend his application to a request for an upgraded discharge on the basis of clemency. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03986
On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair for squadron detail. On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application...
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00278
Furthermore, in view of the repeated misconduct during his short period of service that resulted in his court-martial actions and subsequent discharge and the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s service on the basis of clemency is warranted. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge is not favorably considered. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed applicant’s request and states that considering the discharge was almost 30 years ago, the type of offenses committed, and the fact that the member received a psychiatrist’s recommendation that he should have been administratively separated, clemency is recommended. Applicant indicated that she does not wish to provide a response to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02833
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-02833 INDEX CODE 105.01 105.06 106.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 2001 bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A...